/0_37582_a5099892_L[1].jpg)
Location: 15 Ulitsa Gastello
Subway: Moskovskaya
Closed to
the public
The Chesmenskiy Palace, also known as the Chesme Palace (Russian: Чесменский дворец, Chesmenskiy dvorets), is a unique and historically significant architectural landmark located at Gastello Street 15 in the Moskovskiy district of Saint Petersburg, Russia. Constructed between 1774 and 1777 during the reign of Catherine the Great, it was designed by the court architect Yuri Felten as a waypost for the imperial court traveling between Saint Petersburg and the summer residence at Tsarskoye Selo. Named in honor of the Russian naval victory at the Battle of Chesme (1770) during the Russo-Turkish War, the palace is a rare example of the early Gothic Revival style in Russia, inspired by English models like Horace Walpole’s Strawberry Hill villa. Originally a triangular “track palace” with a romantic, castle-like aesthetic, it was later repurposed as an almshouse, expanded with utilitarian wings, and now serves as part of the Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation. Its distinctive architecture, historical transformations, and cultural artifacts, such as the Wedgwood Chesme Dinner Service, make it a compelling, if underappreciated, part of Saint Petersburg’s UNESCO World Heritage-listed heritage.
The Chesmenskiy Palace was conceived as a functional yet symbolic
structure during Catherine the Great’s reign (1762–1796), a period of
Russian imperial expansion and cultural flourishing. Located seven miles
south of Saint Petersburg, in an area then known as Kickerikixen
(Finnish for “frog’s swamp”), the site was a swampy, uninhabited tract
acquired during the Great Northern War (1700–1721). By 1717, a road was
built connecting Saint Petersburg to Tsarskoye Selo, Catherine’s summer
residence, necessitating rest stops for the imperial court’s long
journeys. The palace, initially called a “dacha,” was commissioned in
1774 to serve as such a waypost, providing lodging and a venue for
courtly events.
The palace’s name and purpose were tied to the
Battle of Chesme (July 5–7, 1770), a decisive Russian naval victory over
the Ottoman fleet in Chesme Bay, Turkey, during the Russo-Turkish War
(1768–1774). Led by admirals Grigory Spiridov and Samuel Greig, the
battle destroyed the Turkish navy, securing Russian control over the
Black Sea trade routes, including Kerch and Azov. Catherine, eager to
commemorate this triumph, named the palace and the adjacent Chesme
Church (1777–1780) after the victory, with the palace’s completion in
1777 coinciding with the battle’s 10th anniversary. The Round Hall in
the palace’s central turret was used to present the Order of St. George,
Russia’s highest military honor, to commanders like Field Marshals
Alexander Suvorov and Mikhail Kutuzov, cementing its role as a monument
to Russian military glory.
From 1777 to the 1830s, the palace
functioned as a track palace, hosting Catherine and her court during
travels. Its romantic, Gothic-inspired design, evoking a medieval
castle, reflected Catherine’s taste for European trends, particularly
the English Gothic Revival. By the 1830s, under Nicholas I, the palace’s
role shifted dramatically. In 1830, it was converted into an almshouse
(bogadelnya) for veterans of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), reflecting
the era’s focus on social welfare for soldiers. Architect Alexander
Staubert was tasked with expanding the palace, adding three two-story
wings to the triangular core, connected via the corner towers, to house
400 residents. The jagged parapets were removed, replaced with domes,
and a winter church was consecrated on the second floor. By the 1840s,
two additional stories were added to each wing, further altering its
original silhouette.
During the Soviet era, the palace’s military
and charitable legacy continued. After World War II, it was repurposed
for educational use, becoming part of the Leningrad Institute of
Aircraft Instrument-Making (now the Saint Petersburg State University of
Aerospace Instrumentation). The surrounding area, once a forested
meadow, was urbanized, with additional buildings and a cemetery
developed nearby, integrating the palace into the growing Moskovskiy
district. Despite these changes, the palace retained its historical
significance, linked to Catherine’s reign and the Chesme victory, with
artifacts like the Wedgwood Chesme Dinner Service (commissioned in
1773–1775, now in the Hermitage) preserving its cultural legacy.
The Chesmenskiy Palace is a striking example of early Gothic Revival
architecture in Russia, a style rare for its time, which blends medieval
castle aesthetics with Catherine’s preference for early classicism.
Designed by Yuri Felten, a German-Russian architect known for the Chesme
Church and Old Hermitage, the palace was inspired by English Gothic
models, particularly Horace Walpole’s Strawberry Hill villa (1749–1777)
in Twickenham, reflecting the romantic, antiquarian trends of
18th-century Europe. Its original design as a triangular “track palace”
with corner towers and a central turret gave it a fortress-like
appearance, contrasting with the Baroque exuberance of St. Nicholas’
Naval Cathedral or the neoclassical elegance of the Tavrichesky Palace.
Exterior: The palace’s main building is an equilateral triangle, a
bold geometric choice symbolizing stability and strength, with three
round towers at each corner and a central turret housing the Round Hall.
The exterior walls, originally crowned with a toothed, battlement-like
parapet, evoked a medieval castle, enhanced by lancet (pointed) windows
and rusticated stonework on the lower floor. The upper floor, finished
with plastered brickwork, was smoother, emphasizing the Gothic
verticality. Each corner tower, designed with loopholes for defensive
aesthetics, was topped with a lantern and semicircular dome, later
modified during the almshouse conversion. The red-and-white color
scheme, typical of Petrine and Elizabethan architecture, aligned with
landmarks like the Twelve Colleges and Menshikov’s Palace, though the
Gothic elements were uniquely experimental. The 1830s expansion by
Staubert added three four-story wings, connected via the towers, which
replaced the jagged parapets with simpler domes and introduced cast-iron
gates, diluting the Gothic character. These wings, architecturally
unremarkable, prioritized function over form, housing additional rooms
for veterans.
Interior: The palace’s interior, in stark contrast to
its Gothic exterior, is designed in early classicism, Catherine’s
preferred style, characterized by refined simplicity and classical
motifs. The Round Hall, the central feature, was a ceremonial space for
presenting the Order of St. George, adorned with panels, medallions,
cornices, wreaths, and floral garlands—hallmarks of Felten’s classicist
aesthetic. Other rooms, used for lodging and court functions, featured
similar decor, with white walls, gilded accents, and parquet floors,
though much was altered during the almshouse and Soviet periods. The
winter church, added in the 1830s on the second floor, introduced
Orthodox iconography, but its classicist framework remained. The
interior’s lack of Gothic elements, unlike the exterior’s castle-like
facade, reflects a deliberate stylistic dichotomy, blending romantic
nostalgia with Enlightenment clarity, a contrast absent in the unified
Baroque of Menshikov’s Palace.
Surroundings: The palace was
originally set in a forested meadow, with a regular park laid out in the
1830s for almshouse residents’ walks, replacing the natural landscape.
The adjacent Chesme Church, also by Felten (1777–1780), shares the
Gothic Revival style, its red-and-white facade and pointed arches
complementing the palace. The church, consecrated to Saint John the
Baptist, enhances the complex’s memorial function, linked to the Chesme
victory. The modern Moskovskiy district, with its Soviet-era buildings
and cemetery, urbanizes the site, reducing its romantic isolation but
integrating it into the city’s fabric, unlike the fortress-bound
Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul. The “green frog” motif, tied to the
area’s Kickerikixen name, appears in the Wedgwood dinner service, a
subtle nod to the swampy origins.
The palace’s architectural
evolution—from a Gothic Revival dacha to a sprawling almshouse—reflects
the shifting priorities of Russian rulers, from Catherine’s cultural
ambitions to Nicholas I’s social reforms. The 1830s additions, while
practical, compromised Felten’s vision, a fate shared with the Twelve
Colleges’ utilitarian modifications, though the palace’s core retains
its Gothic charm, distinguishing it from the neoclassical Marble Palace
or the Baroque Winter Palace.
The Chesmenskiy Palace is a multifaceted symbol of Catherine the
Great’s reign, Russian naval prowess, and Saint Petersburg’s
architectural diversity, with a significance that spans several
dimensions:
Catherine’s Legacy: Built as a track palace, the
Chesmenskiy Palace reflects Catherine’s strategy to glorify her military
victories and cultural sophistication. The Chesme victory, securing
Black Sea trade, was a geopolitical milestone, and naming the palace
after it tied Catherine’s reign to Russian expansion, a theme echoed in
the Tavrichesky Palace’s tribute to Potemkin’s Crimean conquests. The
Wedgwood Chesme Dinner Service, commissioned in 1773–1775 with 944
pieces featuring naval and frog motifs, underscores her patronage of
European craftsmanship, now a Hermitage treasure, paralleling the
Kunstkamera’s Petrine artifacts.
Naval Commemoration: The palace’s
role in presenting the Order of St. George to naval heroes like Suvorov
and Kutuzov links it to Russia’s maritime heritage, complementing St.
Nicholas’ Naval Cathedral’s spiritual focus. The Chesme Church, part of
the complex, reinforces this, with its Gothic design and memorial
services for fallen sailors, creating a unified tribute to the 1770
victory, unlike the broader imperial narrative of the Cathedral of
Saints Peter and Paul.
Architectural Innovation: Felten’s early
Gothic Revival design, inspired by English models, was a bold departure
from the Baroque and neoclassical norms of Saint Petersburg, seen in the
Winter Palace and Tavrichesky Palace. The palace’s triangular plan and
castle-like facade introduced a romantic, medieval aesthetic rare in
Russia, predating the global Gothic Revival’s 19th-century peak, as seen
in London’s Houses of Parliament. Its interior classicism, aligning with
Catherine’s taste, reflects the era’s stylistic pluralism, a duality
absent in the unified Petrine Baroque of Menshikov’s Palace.
Social
Transformation: The 1830s conversion into an almshouse under Nicholas I
highlights Russia’s early welfare efforts, housing Napoleonic War
veterans in a former imperial dacha, a pragmatic shift akin to the
Spaso-Konyushenny Church’s Soviet repurposing. The addition of
four-story wings, while diminishing the Gothic aesthetic, ensured the
palace’s utility, contrasting with the Tavrichesky Palace’s transition
to a parliamentary seat, which retained its grandeur.
Soviet and
Post-Soviet Continuity: The palace’s post-World War II role as an
educational institute, now part of the Saint Petersburg State University
of Aerospace Instrumentation, mirrors the Twelve Colleges’ academic
function, preserving its relevance amid urban growth, unlike the
demolished Savior Church on Sennaya Square. Its integration into the
Moskovskiy district, while reducing its romantic isolation, aligns with
Saint Petersburg’s expansion, as seen in the Finland Station’s modern
rail hub. The palace’s inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage site, as
part of the city’s historic ensembles, underscores its global cultural
value, though its academic use limits public access compared to the
Hermitage’s Menshikov Palace.
The palace’s “green frog” motif, tied
to its swampy origins, adds a whimsical cultural layer, echoed in local
folklore and the Wedgwood service, similar to the Chizhik-Pyzhik’s
playful symbolism. Its overshadowing by the Chesme Church, as noted in
sources, reflects its diminished splendor, yet its Gothic core remains a
testament to Catherine’s eclectic tastes, complementing the city’s
Baroque (Winter Palace) and neoclassical (Marble Palace) landmarks.
As of 2025, the Chesmenskiy Palace is primarily an academic building
within the Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace
Instrumentation, limiting public access compared to tourist-heavy sites
like the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul or Menshikov’s Palace.
Located at Gastello Street 15, in the Moskovskiy district, it is
accessible via metro station Park Pobedy (10-minute walk) or bus lines
3, 26, or 50 from Moskovskaya station. The palace is not a museum, but
its exterior and adjacent Chesme Church are viewable, with occasional
guided tours (~3,000 rubles, $30 USD) offered by agencies like
Petersburg 24, focusing on the Gothic architecture and Chesme history.
The Round Hall and winter church are rarely open, reserved for
university events, a restriction akin to the Tavrichesky Palace’s CIS
headquarters role.
Visitors can explore the palace’s triangular
facade, corner towers, and lancet windows, best photographed in autumn
when the surrounding park’s foliage contrasts with the red-and-white
exterior, as noted in Tripadvisor reviews (4.0/5 from ~50 reviews). The
Chesme Church, open daily (10:00 AM–6:00 PM, free entry), is a
must-visit, its Gothic spires and interior frescoes complementing the
palace’s aesthetic, with reviews praising its “medieval charm.” The
park, laid out in the 1830s, offers a quiet space for walks, though
modern buildings detract from the historical ambiance, unlike the
Tauride Gardens’ preserved romance.
The palace’s location, 6.2
miles from St. Nicholas’ Naval Cathedral and 8.9 miles from Vitebsky
Station, places it off the main tourist circuit, requiring a deliberate
trip, unlike the centrally located Literary Café. Nearby attractions
include the Moscow Victory Park (0.5 km), a Soviet-era memorial, and the
House of Soviets (1 km), a Stalinist landmark. Boat tours along the
Neva, while not directly passing the palace, contextualize its role as a
Tsarskoye Selo waypost (~1,000 rubles, $10 USD). Hotels like KINO-Hostel
and SKYPARK, within 0.2 miles, offer budget stays (~2,000 rubles/night,
$20 USD), as listed on Booking.com.
Tripadvisor reviews describe
the palace as a “hidden Gothic gem” but note its “shabby extensions” and
limited access, with some visitors unaware of its university function, a
contrast to the Kunstkamera’s open museum status. The Wedgwood Chesme
Dinner Service, viewable at the Hermitage (~300 rubles, $3 USD), is
recommended for those seeking the palace’s cultural artifacts, with its
frog motifs delighting visitors, per reviews. The lack of English
signage, a recurring issue in Saint Petersburg sites like the Zoological
Museum, and the palace’s academic use deter casual tourists, but its
historical depth rewards dedicated explorers, especially via guided
tours or combined visits with the Chesme Church.
The Chesmenskiy Palace is a fascinating anomaly in Saint Petersburg’s
architectural landscape, its early Gothic Revival design predating the
style’s global prominence and reflecting Catherine’s cosmopolitan
tastes. Felten’s triangular plan and castle-like facade, inspired by
Strawberry Hill, introduced a romantic, medieval aesthetic absent in the
Baroque Winter Palace or neoclassical Tavrichesky Palace, positioning it
as a stylistic pioneer, though less iconic than Rastrelli’s
masterpieces. The interior’s early classicism, with its panels and
garlands, aligns with Catherine’s Enlightenment ideals, creating a
stylistic tension that enriches its narrative, unlike the unified
Petrine Baroque of Menshikov’s Palace.
Historically, the palace’s
role as a Chesme memorial ties it to Russia’s naval ascendancy,
complementing St. Nicholas’ Naval Cathedral’s spiritual focus, but its
almshouse conversion under Nicholas I reflects a pragmatic shift,
diluting its imperial grandeur, a fate shared with the Spaso-Konyushenny
Church’s Soviet repurposing. The 1830s wings, while necessary, obscure
Felten’s vision, raising authenticity questions akin to the
Blagoveshchensky Bridge’s steel upgrades, though the Gothic core remains
intact. The palace’s post-World War II academic role, while ensuring
survival, limits its public engagement, unlike the Finland Station’s
revolutionary accessibility, highlighting a tension between preservation
and accessibility.
Culturally, the Wedgwood dinner service, with
its naval and frog motifs, is a tangible link to Catherine’s patronage,
rivaling the Kunstkamera’s Petrine artifacts, but its Hermitage display
divorces it from the palace, reducing on-site cultural impact, unlike
the Literary Café’s immersive Pushkin narrative. The “green frog” motif,
tied to Kickerikixen’s swampy origins, adds whimsical folklore, echoing
the Chizhik-Pyzhik’s playful charm, but is underutilized in modern
tourism. The palace’s overshadowing by the Chesme Church, as noted in
sources, reflects its diminished splendor, yet its Gothic rarity merits
greater recognition, akin to the Rotonda’s occult allure in haunted
lore.
Architecturally, the palace’s triangular form and Gothic
elements are innovative but less dynamic than the Rostral Columns’
sculptural drama, and the 1830s extensions, described as “unremarkable,”
compromise its coherence, unlike the Twelve Colleges’ unified facade.
The lack of public access, due to its university function, mirrors the
Tavrichesky Palace’s restricted status, but a small exhibit or virtual
tour, as suggested for the Finland Station, could enhance engagement
without disrupting academics. The palace’s integration into the
Moskovskiy district, while practical, erases its romantic isolation, a
loss akin to the Sheremetev Palace’s vanished gardens.
Ethically,
the palace’s glorification of the Chesme victory, a bloody triumph,
risks sanitizing imperial conquest, a critique applicable to the Rostral
Columns’ naval prows. Highlighting the serfs who built it or the
veterans it housed could balance the narrative, aligning with modern
historiographical trends seen in the Kunstkamera’s ethical reflections.
The lack of English resources, noted in reviews, and its peripheral
location deter international tourists, a challenge shared with the
Street Art Museum, though guided tours mitigate this.